Method for Testing and Treating Delayed Food Allergies

ABSTRACT

A method for testing, treating, and preventing delayed food allergies includes: receiving detailed symptom, medical, and dietary histories from a patient; formulating a combination of one or more food extracts at selected concentrations for sublingual administration over a trial period; determining whether the patient&#39;s symptoms have improved, worsened, or had no change, in response to the administration of the combination; and altering the combination in response to whether the patient&#39;s symptoms have improved, worsened, or not changed, so as to induce immune system food tolerance.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/457,879, filed 12 Aug. 2014, titled “Method for Testing and TreatingDelayed Food Allergies,” which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 10,080,810 on 25Sep. 2018, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 13/003,999, filed 13 Jan. 2011, titled “Method for Testing andTreating Delayed Food Allergies,” which issued as a U.S. Pat. No.8,802,056 on 12 Aug. 2014, which is a U.S. national-stage application ofInternational PCT Appl. No. PCT/US2009/051025, filed 17 Jul. 2009,titled “Method for Testing and Treating Delayed Food Allergies,” whichclaims priority to U.S. Provisional Appl. No. 61/081,513, filed 17 Jul.2008, titled “Method for Testing and Treating Delayed Food Allergies,”all of which are hereby incorporated by reference for all purposes as iffully set forth herein.

BACKGROUND 1. Field of the Invention

Beginning in the early 1900's, the term “allergy” was used to denote ageneric immune response. Then, in the early 1960's, based uponadvancements in the identification and understanding of the antibodyImmunoglobulin E (IgE), Dr. Phillip Gell and Dr. Robin Coombs developedthe well-known Gell and Coombs Classification System, in which immunemechanisms of tissue injury are classified into four types of reactions,based upon the immunopathological damage done: Type I—ImmediateHypersensitivity; Type II—Cytotoxic Hypersensitivity; Type III—ImmuneComplex; and Type IV—Delayed Type Hypersensitivity. According to Drs.Gell and Coombs, only immune reactions involving the IgE antibody shouldbe referred to as “allergies.” Type I reactions are considered relatedto IgE, while Type II-IV reactions are generally considered non-IgEmediated reactions.

Although the Gell and Coombs Classification System has become widelyaccepted, many physicians and lay people use the term “allergy” todenote any adverse immune response, i.e., Type I, II, III, or IV. Onereason for this continued use of the term “allergy” to refer to all fourtypes of reactions is that although IgE reactions are present inlife-threatening reactions, such as to food, IgE reactions are alsopresent in typical seasonal reactions to pollens and molds, and inreactions to mites and animal dander. Typically, Type I reactions aresudden. Some Type I reactions may result in life-threatening symptoms.Other Type I reactions produce chronic symptoms, such as reactions toragweed.

A “delayed food allergy” is a chronic reaction to a food or foods thatwould not normally occur in most people. Delayed food allergies havebeen described in many ways, including; food sensitivities, chronicdelayed food hypersensitivities, chronic food allergies, hidden foodallergies, and food allergy-addictions. Delayed food allergies, whichare typically classified as Gell and Coombs Type IV reactions, typicallydo not include immediate food allergies to specific, known foods, whichcan result in anaphylaxis and death, such as an acute peanut allergy orother Gell and Coombs Type I reactions.

There are many types of delayed food allergies. Delayed food allergiesare caused by a wide variety of foods and bring about a wide variety ofsigns and symptoms. One sign of a delayed food allergy is dark circlesunder the eyes. Symptoms include: mental and physical fatigue,alternating dependent nocturnal nasal blockage, waking with a dry mouth,snoring, drooling while asleep, deep ear itching, persistent runny anditchy nose, chronic throat clearing, migraine and common headaches,repeated sneezing, rhinitis-induced sinus and ear infections, skinitching and hives, cough, wheezing, exercise-induced asthma,intermittent tinnitus/hearing loss, hyperactivity, gastrointestinalissues such as diarrhea, gas, abdominal bloating, and irritable bowel.

There are many different methods of testing for allergens that triggerdelayed food allergies. Some tests are designed only for inhalantallergens, some tests are designed only for food allergens, and sometests are designed to test both types of allergens. For example,intracutaneous skin tests using dilutions of common airborne allergensare commonly used to test for inhalant allergens. However, withintracutaneous skin tests, the airborne allergens are uncommonly mixedinto a single solution. In addition, intracutaneous skin tests are usedto test for immediate food allergies, but only with great caution,starting with weak dilutions. This is because the risk of potentiallylethal anaphylactic reactions is too high. For those patients who haveIgE mediated allergies, the radioallergosorbent (RAST) test can be used.The RAST test measures the allergen-specific IgE antibodies in apatient's blood. Other types of blood tests such as serum IgG and ALCAThave had limited usefulness because of poor specificity to detectdelayed food allergies, or food sensitivities. Other methods for testingdelayed food allergies include: elimination diets, rotation diets, andprovocation/neutralization (P/N) tests. These tests also have limitedusefulness, primarily due to difficulty in making any significantchanges in a patient's diet.

The elimination diet is often used to identify delayed food allergiesand requires users to change their diet. The elimination diet requires apatient suffering from delayed food allergies to eliminate certain foodsor classes of foods from the patient's diet, and then slowly reintroduceeach food type, in an attempt to identify the food allergen. Typically,a suspected food is removed from the patient's diet for four days,reintroduced to the patient's diet, and the patient is monitored forsymptoms to reappear over a 24-hour period after reintroduction. Thismethod is difficult to police and extremely taxing to the patient.Moreover, the elimination diet is quite difficult for even the highlymotivated patient to successfully perform. The patient is asked topurchase, prepare, and eat foods that are not normally in the patient'sdiet, and that are often not palatable for the patient with delayed foodallergies, who is usually a “picky eater.”

The rotation diet is another traditional method of identifying delayedfood allergies, particularly in patients with chronic symptoms. In therotation diet, the suspected food is only ingested every three or fourdays, then the patient is observed for symptoms within a day.

Provocation/neutralization tests can be done with either intracutaneousinjections or sublingual drops. The purpose of the P/N test is toprovoke an allergic reaction and then find a neutralizing dose of theallergen. With intracutaneous injections, the patient receives a seriesof injections, each injection having a different dilution of a suspectedallergen. After the injection, the injection site is inspected, and thepatient's symptoms are monitored, to determine whether the patient isallergic to the suspected allergen. This process takes a relative longperiod of time to administer. For example, the patient may have toremain in the physician's office all day, testing a single food everyhalf hour to one hour. In some cases, it can take up to two days for apatient's symptoms to occur and resolve themselves. This is particularlytrue in instances when the patient has a bad reaction to a test.

Provocation/neutralization tests may also be conducted using sublingualdrops. In this method, extracts of certain individual foods at certainconcentrations are administered one after another until the allergen isidentified by symptom provocation. The extracts used in conventionalsublingual testing are obtained by physicians from extract manufacturersin certain standardized concentrations. Commonly a mixture of 50% waterand 50% glycerin, by volume. This process is expensive and timeconsuming. For example, it is not uncommon for a patient to spend anentire day or more at a physician's office or clinic undergoing testing.

Elimination diets, rotation diets, and provocation/neutralization testsrequire the patients to make changes to their diets in order to cause ornot cause allergic reactions from the offending food or suspectedoffending food. These dietary changes are burdensome because of thewidespread use of typical offending foods and the reasonableness ofeliminating those foods from the patient's diet. Additionally duringprovocation/neutralization testing the diet of patient must be strictlycontrolled to isolate the offending food from other allergens.

Recently, sublingual drops of solutions containing multiple foodallergens have become available. However, these solutions arehomeopathic, in which the food extracts are at very low concentrations.These remedies are available without a prescription and without thepatient undergoing an examination by a physician. In other words, nodietary or medical history is taken to determine if indeed there aresymptoms possibly related to food sensitivity, which food extracts toinclude in the solution, and which concentration of extracts is to betried.

All too often, patients with delayed food allergies go to their doctors,but do not get any relief of their symptoms. Their doctors often lackthe training and experience to offer adequate dietary and medicalhistories that could uncover symptoms of delayed food allergies, and thepatients are told to try to get relief from oral as well as nasal spraydecongestants, antihistamines, headache and/or migraine medications,steroid and/or bronchodilator medications for asthma, or go see anallergist. The patient may become “addicted” to decongestant nose sprayfor many years, with associated side effects. The patient may try torely upon external nasal strips for relief, with only partial temporaryrelief of but one of the symptoms of delayed food allergy: nasalcongestion. If the patient schedules an appointment with an allergist,the allergist primarily runs tests on inhalant allergens, and only a fewskin tests for foods, and is mainly interested in IgE mediated, Type Ireactions, and the narrow set of symptoms associated therewith. If theallergist cannot help the patient, the allergist often recommendssurgery on the nasal airway and nasal decongestants. This is oftenbecause allergists typically do not treat non-IgE mediated disease.These allergists typically classify these patients as having “vasomotorrhinitis” or “perennial non-allergenic rhinitis”. The problem with nasalsurgery is that if the cause of the problem was a delayed food allergy,the surgery is usually only helpful for a limited time, as the symptomsoften begin to return a few months after the surgery. Moreover, the manyother symptoms related to delayed food allergies, including those setforth above, are not addressed at all. Although many attempts to testand treat delayed food allergies have been made, considerableshortcomings remain.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The novel features believed characteristic of the embodiments of thepresent application are set forth in the appended claims. However, theembodiments themselves, as well as a preferred mode of use, and furtherobjectives and advantages thereof, will best be understood by referenceto the following detailed description when read in conjunction with theaccompanying drawings, wherein:

FIG. 1A is a chart showing extracts used in a “super-combo” vial ofsolution according to the present application.

FIG. 1B is a chart showing extracts used in a “basic” vial of solutionaccording to the present application.

FIG. 1C is a chart showing extracts used in an “ultra-combo” vial ofsolution according to the present application.

FIG. 1D is a chart showing extracts used in a “drink combo” vial ofsolution according to the present application.

FIG. 1E is a chart showing extracts used in a “beer” vial of solutionaccording to the present application.

FIG. 1F is a chart showing extracts used in a “wine” vial of solutionaccording to the present application.

FIG. 1G is a chart showing extracts used in a “GOT” vial of solutionaccording to the present application.

FIG. 2A is a diagram of a method for testing and, treating delayed foodallergies according to the present application.

FIG. 2B is a continuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to thepresent application.

FIG. 2C is a continuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to thepresent application.

FIG. 2D is a continuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to thepresent application.

FIG. 3 is a chart showing responses of patients with HART (headache,asthma, and rhinitis triad) symptoms to the method for testing andtreating delayed food allergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 4 is a chart showing responses of patients with various symptoms tothe method for testing and treating delayed food allergies disclosed inthe present application.

FIG. 5 is a chart showing responses of patients with asthma and rhinitissymptoms to the method for testing and treating delayed food allergiesdisclosed in the present application.

FIG. 6 is a chart showing responses of patients to the method fortesting and treating delayed food allergies disclosed in the presentapplication.

FIG. 7 is a chart showing responses of patients with HART (headache,asthma, and rhinitis triad) symptoms to the method for testing andtreating delayed food allergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 8A is a chart showing responses of patients with headache andrhinitis symptoms to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 8B is a chart showing responses of patients with headache andrhinitis symptoms to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 9 is a chart showing responses of patients with asthma and rhinitissymptoms to the method for testing and treating delayed food allergiesdisclosed in the present application.

FIG. 10A is a chart showing responses of patients to the method fortesting and treating delayed food allergies disclosed in the presentapplication.

FIG. 10B is a chart showing responses of patients with headache andrhinitis symptoms to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 11 is a chart showing responses of patients with HART (headache,asthma, and rhinitis triad) symptoms to the method for testing andtreating delayed food allergies disclosed in the present application.

FIGS. 12A and 12B represent a chart showing a Food SensitivityQuestionnaire for use in the method for testing and treating delayedfood allergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 13 is a chart showing a Delayed Food Allergy Evaluation Guide foruse in the method for testing and treating delayed food allergiesdisclosed in the present application.

FIG. 14 is a chart showing a Sublingual Food Drop Guide for use in themethod for testing and treating delayed food allergies disclosed in thepresent application.

FIG. 15 is a chart showing Sublingual Management Strategies for FoodSensitivity for use in the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application.

FIG. 16 is a chart showing a SLIT Log for use in the method for testingand treating delayed food allergies disclosed in the presentapplication.

While the assembly and method of the present application is susceptibleto various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodimentsthereof have been shown by way of example in the drawings and are hereindescribed in detail. It should be understood, however, that thedescription herein of specific embodiments is not intended to limit theinvention to the particular embodiment disclosed, but on the contrary,the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents, andalternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the presentapplication as defined by the appended claims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT

Illustrative embodiments of the apparatus for containing regurgitationare provided below. It will of course be appreciated that in thedevelopment of any actual embodiment, numerous implementation-specificdecisions will be made to achieve the developer's specific goals, suchas compliance with assembly-related and business-related constraints,which will vary from one implementation to another. Moreover, it will beappreciated that such a development effort might be complex andtime-consuming, but would nevertheless be a routine undertaking forthose of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit of thisdisclosure.

The present application represents the discovery of a system and methodof testing, treating, and preventing delayed food allergies. With thesystem and method of the present application, delayed food allergies canbe identified and treated, while the patient continues to eat the foodshe wants without changes to their diet. Moreover, the system and methodof the present application may be used to prevent certain delayed foodallergies from evolving. It should be appreciated that even though thesystem and method of the present application is tailored towards humanpatients; the methods disclosed herein can also be applied towardstesting, treating, and preventing delayed food allergies in non-humans.

The preferred embodiment of the present application utilizes sublingualdrops that target receptors under the tongue called dendritic cells,which detect molecules in an allergy drop solution and present them toimmune system T-cells. These regulatory T-cells are thought to induceand maintain tolerance to antigens. The patient commonly notes symptomchanges within days of starting a two week trial vial, then usuallynotes return of symptoms within 2 days.

The food mix in the various allergy drop solutions may contain foods towhich the patient is sensitive, as well as foods to which there nosensitivity. These foods to which there is no sensitivity are kept inthe treatment vials to help prevent development of futuresensitizations. Furthermore, the process of eliminating a common foodfrom the diet is so impractical, that almost all patients are notinterested in separating and testing sublingually the individual foodsfound in the food mixes.

The dietary history is important because what is most often consumed ismost often the culprit. However, because the dietary history isimperfect and the food culprit is commonly ingested in a “hidden form”,the dietary history is usually of little benefit. Examples of “hidden”foods include onion hidden in ketchup and whey hidden in bread andcereal. The majority of patients with food sensitivities respond to thefoods present in the “super-combo” mix. Previous attempts to test andtreat delayed food allergies utilize dietary changes to determine andtreat the delayed food allergies. Utilizing dietary changes for thetesting, treating, and prevention of delayed food allergies is flawedbecause of the difficulty of detecting the offending food and theelimination of the offending food from the user's diet.

Illustrative embodiments of the present application are described below.In the interest of clarity, not all features of an actual implementationare described in this specification. It will of course be appreciatedthat in the development of any such actual embodiment, numerousimplementation-specific decisions must be made to achieve thedeveloper's specific goals, such as compliance with system-related andbusiness-related constraints, which will vary from one implementation toanother. Moreover, it will be appreciated that such a development effortmight be complex and time-consuming but would nevertheless be a routineundertaking for those of ordinary skill in the art having the benefit ofthis disclosure.

Referring to FIG. 1A in the drawings, a chart 100 listing the extractsused in the preferred embodiment of a “super-combo” vial of solutionaccording to the present application is shown. Wheat, corn, dairy, egg,yeast, garlic, onion and tomato (WCDEYGOT) are believed to be some ofthe most common foods that cause chronic food sensitivity.

The WCDEYGOT is administered as food extracts (commonly available foodallergy extracts) in a water and glycerin solution, disposed within adropper vial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referred to as a“super-combo” vial. According to the preferred embodiment, the optimumstarting dilution of the present application is determined by using analgorithm based upon patient age, headache and asthma severity: (seeOptimum Starting Dilution Algorithm Chart).

Optimum Starting Dilution Algorithm Chart

The optimum starting dilution is the sum of four factors based on age,asthma, headache, and rhinitis:

AGE+ ASTHMA+ HEADACHE+ RHINITIS =DILUTION 2-20 = 2   Mild = 0 Mild = 0Mild = 0 30 = 3 Moderate = Moderate = 1 Moderate = 1 1 40 = 4 Severe = 2Severe = 2 Severe = 2 50 = 5 60 = 6 70 = 7 80 = 8 90 = 9 100 = 10

Examples

13 year old female with recurrent severe migraine: 2+2=#4 Dilution

63 year old male with mild headache: 6+0=#6 Dilution

29 year old female with asthma treated a few times a year but withrather chronic severe migraine headaches: 2+0+2=#4 Dilution

71 year old male with moderate headaches: 7+1=#8 Dilution

33 year old female with chronic severe asthma and daily severe headache:3+2+2=#7 Dilution

The various dilutions are created by starting with the concentrateprovided by the allergy extract company, and making 1/5 dilutions usinga diluent comprised of 1 part glycerin and 1 part water, by volume. Anumber 1 dilution is 1/5 C is created by diluting 1 cc of food extractconcentrate with 4 cc of a diluent, by volume. A number 2 dilution is1/25 C is realized by diluting 1 cc of 1/5 C solution with 4 cc of thediluent, by volume. A 1/125 C is realized by diluting 1 cc of 1/25 Csolution with 4 cc of the diluent, by volume, and so on for furtherdilution. (see the Dilution chart)

DILUTION CHART CONCENTRATE 1/1 #1 DILUTION 1/5 #2 DILUTION 1/25 #3DILUTION 1/125 #4 DILUTION 1/625 #5 DILUTION 1/3,125 #6 DILUTION1/15,625 #7 DILUTION 1/78,125 #8 DILUTION 1/390,625 #9 DILUTION1/1,953,125 #10 DILUTION  1/9,765,625

It is believed that the various dilutions have the ability to provide animmunotherapeutic response, thereby inducing immune system foodtolerance. It should be understood that there could be a homeopathicaffect, as well, or in addition to, the immunotherapeutic affect of theprocedure of the present application. However, it will be appreciatedthat with some patients, depending upon their dietary and medicalhistory, this concentration is too strong and may cause temporaryexacerbation of food reactions from over-reaction of the immune system.In such cases, the solution may be diluted or otherwise adjusted.Sublingual drops target receptors under the tongue called dendriticcells, which detect molecules in an allergy drop solution and presentthem to immune system T-cells. These regulatory T-cells are thought toinduce and maintain tolerance to antigens. T-cells send a message to theother cells that the food extracts are tolerated, although the exactmethod is unknown. The T-cells' messages to other cells are sentdirectly (cell-to-cell) or indirectly (via cytokines made by the othercells). In the preferred embodiment, other common foods in the patient'sdiet can be administered as food extracts in addition to the extracts inthe “super-combo” vial. In an alternative embodiment, soy, anothercommon food allergen, can be administered as a food extract in additionto the extracts in the “super-combo” vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1B in the drawings, there is shown a chart110 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of a “basic”vial solution according to the present application. Wheat, corn, dairy,egg, yeast (WCDEY) are believed to be some of the most common foods thatcause delayed food allergies (chronic food sensitivity). The WCDEY areadministered as food extracts in a water and glycerin solution, disposedwithin a dropper vial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referredto as a “basic” vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can beadministered as food extracts in addition to the extracts in the “basic”vial. For example, soy can be administered as a food extract in additionto the extracts in the “basic” vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1C in the drawings, there is shown a chart120 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of an“ultra-combo” vial solution according to the present application. Soy,rice, potato, chocolate, cinnamon, coconut, sugar, beef, pork, apple,orange, black pepper, chicken, banana, lemon, and oat are believed to beother common foods that cause delayed food allergies (chronic foodsensitivity). The aforementioned food extracts are administered in awater and glycerin solution, disposed within a dropper vial, in aspecific dilution. This solution is referred to as an “ultra-combo”vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can be administered asfood extracts in addition to the extracts in the “ultra-combo” vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1D in the drawings, there is shown a chart130 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of a“drink-combo” vial solution according to the present application. Tea,white grape, concord grape, brewer yeast, barley, hops, coffee, and teaare believed to be other common foods that cause delayed food allergies(chronic food sensitivity). The aforementioned food extracts areadministered in a water and glycerin solution, disposed within a droppervial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referred to as a“drink-combo” vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can beadministered as food extracts in addition to the extracts in the“drink-combo” vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1E in the drawings, there is shown a chart140 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of a “beer” vialsolution according to the present application. Brewer yeast, barley, andhops are believed to be other common foods that cause delayed foodallergies (chronic food sensitivity). The aforementioned food extractsare administered in a water and glycerin solution, disposed within adropper vial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referred to as a“beer” vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can beadministered as food extracts in addition to the extracts in the “beer”vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1F in the drawings, there is shown a chart150 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of a “wine” vialsolution according to the present application. Yeast, white grape, andconcord grape are believed to be other common foods that cause delayedfood allergies (chronic food sensitivity). The aforementioned foodextracts are administered in a water and glycerin solution, disposedwithin a dropper vial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referredto as a “wine” vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can beadministered as food extracts in addition to the extracts in the “wine”vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 1G in the drawings, there is shown a chart160 listing the extracts used in a preferred embodiment of a “GOT” vialsolution according to the present application. Garlic, onion, and tomatoare believed to be other common foods that cause delayed food allergies(chronic food sensitivity). The aforementioned food extracts areadministered in a water and glycerin solution, disposed within a droppervial, in a specific dilution. This solution is referred to as a “GOT”vial. Other common foods in the patient's diet can be administered asfood extracts in addition to the extracts in the “GOT” vial.

Referring now also to FIG. 2A in the drawings, a flowchart 200 depictingthe preferred embodiment of a method for testing and treating delayedfood allergies according to the present application is shown. Method 200begins at 202, in which a detailed symptom and medical history of thepatient is taken. Chart 1200, shown in FIGS. 12A and 12B, represents afood sensitivity questionnaire for facilitating taking the patientsymptom and medical history. Referring now also to FIG. 13 in thedrawings, a chart 1300 is a delayed food allergy evaluation guide usedin method for testing and treating delayed food allergies disclosed inthe present application is illustrated. Chart 1300 is used to facilitateacquiring patient symptom and medical history data. The method thenproceeds to 204. At 204, a dietary history of foods common in thepatient's diet is taken. In the preferred embodiment, the patient isasked for a list of favorite foods and/or foods frequently consumed inthe patient's diet. The taking of these detailed histories is areimportant steps in the process of the subject application, as thepatient's symptoms, and medical and dietary histories, play importantroles in the selection of the type, make-up, and extract concentrationlevels of the initial and subsequent vials that are administered to thepatient. The method then proceeds to 206. It should be apparent that themethod does not require or utilize invasive testing such as pricktesting, blood testing, or intradermal injections to test, treat, orprevent delayed food allergies. Patients typically do not like invasivetesting and the method by not utilizing invasive testing increases thelikelihood of patients remaining in the process.

At 206, an initial solution is prepared for sublingual administration.In the preferred embodiment, the initial solution is a “super-combo”vial, wherein WCDEYGOT are combined with glycerin and water. In analternative embodiment, the initial solution is a GOT vial or “basic”vial. The “basic” vial is often the initial solution administered tosmall children, and the “super-combo” vial is usually the initialsolution administered to adults and older children. The method thenproceeds to 208.

At 208, the solution is administered to the patient over a trial period.In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered three timesdaily. For example, a single drop is placed under the tongue first thingin the morning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime, with the best resultsoccurring if the drops are not administered at or during a mealtime. Thetrial period preferably lasts two weeks. Worsening of the patient'ssymptoms may occur. In approximately 10% of patients; when this occurs,it routinely will start to occur during the first few days of drop use.The patient is asked to discontinue that drop dilution, and obtain aweaker dilution for another 2 week trial period. If improvement occurs,there will be a gradual decrease in symptoms over several days, thenwhen the drops are stopped after the two week trial period, the originalsymptoms quickly return during the first few days off the drops.Referring now also to FIG. 14 in the drawings, a chart 1400 is asublingual food drop guide used in method for testing and treatingdelayed food allergies disclosed in the present application isillustrated. Chart 1400 is used to facilitate acquiring patient symptomdata during the method disclosed in the present application. Referringnow also to FIG. 16 in the drawings, a chart 1600 is a SLIT log used inmethod for testing and treating delayed food allergies disclosed in thepresent application is illustrated. Chart 1600 is used to facilitateacquiring patient symptom data during the method disclosed in thepresent application. The method then proceeds to 210. It should beapparent that the method does not require nor suggest the patient changetheir diet. Changes in diet during the method would adversely affect thetesting and treating by adding an independent variable of dietarychanges. Thereby resulting in confusion in the doctor and patient if theinitial dilution was working or if the change in diet caused the changein symptoms.

At 210, it is determined whether the patient's symptoms are improving,getting worse, or experiencing no change. In the preferred embodiment,the patient is brought in to a first follow-up consultation to give anaccount of the degree of the symptoms as compared with the degree of thesymptoms at the initial consultation. If the patient's symptoms haveimproved since the initial consultation, the method proceeds to 212(continued in FIG. 2B). If the patient's symptoms have gotten worsesince the initial consultation, the method proceeds to 234 (continued inFIG. 2C). If the patient's symptoms experience no change since theinitial consultation, the method proceeds to 246 (continued in FIG. 2D).

Referring now also to FIG. 2B in the drawings, there is shown acontinuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to the presentapplication. At 212, it is determined whether the food extracts in theinitial solution will be separated and the offending extracts furtheridentified. For example, a cost benefit analysis of further testing andtreatment may be undertaken. If it is decided that the initial solutionwill be separated and further identified, the method proceeds to 216. Ifit is decided that the initial solution will not be separated andfurther identified, the method proceeds to 214.

At 214, because the patient experienced an improvement in symptoms withthe initial solution, the patient continues administration of thecurrent solution at the current concentration, and monitors the diet.The method then proceeds to 215. At 215, the patient returns to thedoctor's office in six months for a second follow-up consultation. At216, administration of the initial solution is ceased for a period oftime. In the preferred embodiment, the patient continues eating foodsthat cause allergy symptoms without administering drops for up to twoweeks, or until symptoms return. The method then proceeds to 217.

At 217, solution A and solution B are prepared by separating the foodextracts in the initial solution. In the preferred embodiment, a“super-combo” vial was used as the initial solution, and solution Acontains WCDEY food extracts, glycerin, and water at a 1/25 Cconcentration, and solution B contains GOT food extracts, glycerin, andwater at a 1/25 C concentration. The method then proceeds to 218.

At 218, solution A is administered to the patient over a trial period.In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered three timesdaily. A single drop is placed under the tongue first thing in themorning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime. The trial period preferablylasts two weeks; alternatively the trial period is five days with anadditional two days of no drops being applied. The method then proceedsto 220.

At 220, it is determined whether the patient's symptoms are gettingbetter or experience no change. In the preferred embodiment, the patientis brought in for a second follow-up consultation to give an account ofthe degree of the symptoms as compared with the degree of the symptomsat the first follow-up consultation. If the patient's symptoms haveimproved since the first follow-up consultation, the method proceeds to222. If the patient's symptoms experience no change since the firstfollow-up consultation, the method proceeds to 227.

At 222, administration of solution A is ceased for a period of time. Inthe preferred embodiment, the patient continues eating foods that causeallergy symptoms without administering drops for up to two weeks, oruntil symptoms return. The method then proceeds to 224.

At 224, a unique solution is prepared by separating the food extracts inthe initial solution. In the preferred embodiment, the unique solutioncontains one or more WCDEY food extracts, glycerin, and water at a 1/25C concentration. The unique solution must have at least one less foodextract than solution A, unless other food extracts are added. It ispreferred that the food extracts chosen for the unique solution bechosen based on the patient's dietary history. The method then proceedsto 225.

At 225, the unique solution is administered to the patient over a trialperiod. In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered threetimes daily. In a second exemplary embodiment, a single drop is placedunder the tongue first thing in the morning, at mid-afternoon, and atbedtime. The trial period preferably lasts two weeks; alternatively thetrial period is five days. The method then proceeds to 226.

At 226, it is determined whether all food extracts and combinationsthereof have been used. The unique solution must be unique; meaning thatthe exact same combination of extracts must not have been used in theunique solution for this patient before. If all extracts andcombinations thereof have been used in the unique solution for thispatient, the method proceeds to 233. If all extracts and combinationsthereof have not been used in the unique solution for this patient, themethod proceeds to 224.

At 227, solution B is administered to the patient over a trial period.In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered three timesdaily. A single drop is placed under the tongue first thing in themorning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime. The trial period preferablylasts two weeks; alternatively the trial period is five days. The methodthen proceeds to 220.

At 228, it is determined whether the patient's symptoms are gettingbetter or experience no change. In the preferred embodiment, the patientis brought in for a third follow-up consultation to give an account ofthe degree of the symptoms as compared with the degree of the symptomsat the second follow-up consultation. If the patient's symptoms haveimproved since the second follow-up consultation, the method proceeds to229. If the patient's symptoms experience no change since the secondfollow-up consultation, the method proceeds to 246 (continued in FIG.2C).

At 229, administration of solution B is ceased for a period of time. Inthe preferred embodiment, the patient continues eating foods that causedelayed allergy symptoms without administering drops for up to twoweeks, or until symptoms return. The method then proceeds to 230.

At 230, a unique solution is prepared by separating the food extracts inthe initial solution. In the preferred embodiment, the unique solutioncontains one or more GOT food extracts, glycerin, and water at a 1/25 Cconcentration. The unique solution must have at least one less foodextract than solution B, unless other food extracts are added. The foodextracts chosen for the unique solution are preferably chosen based onthe patient's dietary history. The method then proceeds to 231.

At 231, the unique solution is administered to the patient over a trialperiod. In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered threetimes daily. A single drop is placed under the tongue first thing in themorning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime. The trial period preferablylasts two weeks; alternatively the trial period is five days. The methodthen proceeds to 232.

At 232, it is determined whether all food extracts and combinationsthereof have been used. The unique solution must be unique; meaning thatthe exact same combination of extracts must not have been used in theunique solution for this patient before. If all extracts andcombinations thereof have been used in the unique solution for thispatient, the method proceeds to 233. If all extracts and combinationsthereof have not been used in the unique solution for this patient, themethod proceeds to 230.

At 233, the method for testing and treating delayed food allergies ends.In the preferred embodiment, the results on the patient's symptoms bythe different unique solutions are analyzed and the food allergies areidentified. A long-term customized treatment plan, based upon theanalysis, is initiated with the patient. Returning visits andevaluations may be prescribed.

It is the intent of the procedure to continue to weaken or strengthenthe food extracts until the patient has satisfactory symptom reliefwithout symptom provocation.

Referring now also to FIG. 2C in the drawings, there is shown acontinuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to the presentapplication. At step 234 a dilution procedure is initiated, with eachadditional concentration being diluted by 1/5. At 235, it is determinedwhether the initial solution concentration has been diluted to1/9,765,625 C. In the preferred embodiment, the 1/9,765,625 Cconcentration of the initial solution is too low to affect the patient.If the 1/9,765,625 C concentration has been reached, the method proceedsto 236. If the 1/9,765,625 C concentration has not been reached, themethod proceeds to 238.

At 238, administration of the initial solution is ceased for a period oftime. In the preferred embodiment, the patient continues eating foodsthat cause allergy symptoms without administering drops for up to twoweeks, or until symptoms return. The method then proceeds to 240.

At 240, the solution concentration is diluted in order to find a weakerdilution that will be less likely to provoke symptoms. In the preferredembodiment, the initial solution is diluted by combining 1 cc of foodextract with 4 cc of a diluent, by volume. The diluent is comprised of 1part glycerin and 1 part water, by volume. Glycerin is used as apreservative. The diluted solution is preferably diluted to 1/5 of itsparent concentration. The method then proceeds to 242.

At 242, a diluted solution is administered to the patient over a trialperiod. In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered threetimes daily. A single drop is placed under the tongue first thing in themorning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime. The trial period preferablylasts two weeks. The method then proceeds to 244.

At 244, it is determined whether the patient's symptoms are gettingbetter or experience no change. In the preferred embodiment, the patientis brought in for a second follow-up consultation to give an account ofthe degree of the symptoms as compared with the degree of the symptomsat the first follow-up consultation. If the patient's symptoms haveimproved since the first follow-up consultation, the method proceeds to212 (continued in FIG. 2B). If the patient's symptoms experience nochange since the first follow-up consultation, the method proceeds to234.

At 236, the method for testing and treating delayed food allergies ends.In the preferred embodiment, the results on the patient's symptomsexperience no change, so the patient may try another food mix such as“Ultra-combo” or the patient may want to try a rotation or eliminationdiet with the patient returning in six months for a follow-upconsultation. It should be understood that very weak dilutions may beneeded in the very sensitive patient.

Referring now also to FIG. 2D in the drawings, there is shown acontinuation of the diagram of FIG. 2A according to the presentapplication. At 246, administration of the initial solution is ceasedfor a period of time. In the preferred embodiment, the patient continueseating foods that cause allergy symptoms without administering drops forup to two weeks, or until symptoms return. The method then proceeds to248.

At 248, solution C is prepared by adding food extracts from foods thatare common to the patient's diet, as disclosed by the patient's dietaryhistory. In the preferred embodiment, the unique solution contains soy,glycerin, and water at a 1/25 C concentration. The food extracts chosenfor the unique solution are preferably chosen based on the patient'sdietary history, especially considering foods frequent in the patient'sdiet. The method then proceeds to 250.

At 250, solution C is administered to the patient over a trial period.In the preferred embodiment, the solution is administered three timesdaily. A single drop is placed under the tongue first thing in themorning, at mid-afternoon, and at bedtime. The trial period preferablylasts two weeks. The method then proceeds to 252.

At 252, it is determined whether the patient's symptoms are gettingbetter or experience no change. In the preferred embodiment, the patientis brought in for a second follow-up consultation to give an account ofthe degree of the symptoms as compared with the degree of the symptomsat the first follow-up consultation. If the patient's symptoms haveimproved since the first follow-up consultation, the method proceeds to212. If the patient's symptoms experience no change since the firstfollow-up consultation, the method can either proceed to 246 or may tryanother food mix such as “Ultra-combo” or the patient may want to try arotation or elimination diet with the patient returning in six monthsfor a follow-up consultation.

In a hypothetical case, a patient having delayed food allergiesdiscloses a symptom history detailing the symptoms suffered.Additionally, the patient discloses a dietary history detailing foodscommon to the patient's diet. A “super-combo” vial is prepared for thepatient. The patient administers one sublingual drop three times dailyfor two weeks. The patient then returns for a first follow-upconsultation to provide an update or change in patient symptoms: better,worse or same.

If, after the first follow-up consultation, the patient's symptoms havegotten better, the patient and doctor discuss whether to separate theextracts and further identify the allergen, or to continue the currentregimen and monitor the patient's diet for six months, then checkup. Ifthe decision is to separate and identify the extracts in the“super-combo” vial, the extracts are divided into two groups. Group 1can contain VVCDEY, and group 2 can contain GOT. The patient ceasesadministration of the sublingual drops for as short as three days, butas long as two weeks, after which, the vial containing group 1 extractsis administered to the hypothetical patient for a period of two weeks.The patient then returns for a second follow-up consultation to providean update or change in patient symptoms: better, worse or same.

If, after the second follow-up consultation, the patient's symptoms havegotten better, the allergen is contained in the group 1 solution and thefood extracts contained in the group 1 solution are separated so tofurther isolate and identify the allergen. A solution containing onlyone food extract, glycerin, and water is administered to the patient fortwo weeks, the patient then returns for a follow-up consultation toprovide an update or change in patient symptoms: better, worse or same.This process of administration for two weeks followed by a follow-upconsultation is repeated with a solution containing one food extractfrom group one until all the extracts have been individuallyadministered. In this way, the offending food allergen can be isolatedand identified, thereby equipping the patient with the knowledge of whatfoods can cause the patient's allergic reaction.

Referring now also to FIG. 3 in the drawings, a chart 300 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from39 consecutive patients, with follow up, with headache, asthma, andrhinitis triad (HART) symptoms is represented in chart 300.

Referring now also to FIG. 4 in the drawings, a chart 400 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from59 consecutive patients with various symptoms is represented in chart400. For example, after taking the sublingual drops of the patientsexperiencing nasal blockage, 28 patients experienced improvement, 17patients experienced no change, and 1 patient experienced a worsening ofthe nasal blockage. Chart 400 also reveals that of the patientsexperiencing snoring symptoms, 5 patients experienced improvement, 9experienced no change, and 0 patients experienced a worsening of thesymptom, after taking the sublingual drops.

Referring now also to FIG. 5 in the drawings, a chart 500 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from49 consecutive patients with asthma and rhinitis symptoms is representedin chart 500. Following an administration of sublingual drops to 49patients, 41 of the patients experienced an improvement in theirsymptoms, 2 experienced a worsening of symptoms, 2 experienced no changein their symptoms, and 4 without follow up. In addition, 23 patientsreordered the sublingual drops. Chart 500 represents 49 actual patientsthat were experiencing asthma and rhinitis symptoms prior to receivingsublingual drops according to the present application.

Referring now also to FIG. 6 in the drawings, a chart 600 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from712 consecutive patients, with follow up, having sublingual dropsaccording to the method of the present application is represented inchart 600. Following an administration of sublingual drops to 712patients, 437 of the patients experienced an improvement in theirsymptoms, 87 experienced a worsening of symptoms, and 188 experienced nochange in their symptoms. In addition, 258 patients reordered thesublingual drops and 103 patients reordered the sublingual drops again.Chart 600 represents 712 actual patients that received sublingual dropsaccording to the method of the present application.

Referring now also to FIG. 7 in the drawings, a chart 700 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from42 consecutive patients with headache, asthma, and rhinitis triad (HART)symptoms is represented in chart 700. Following an administration ofsublingual drops to 42 patients, 35 of the patients experienced animprovement in their symptoms, 2 experienced a worsening of symptoms, 2experienced no change in their symptoms, and 3 patients did not followup. In addition, 18 patients reordered the sublingual drops. Chart 700represents 42 actual patients that were experiencing headache, asthma,and rhinitis triad (HART) symptoms prior to receiving sublingual dropsaccording to the present application.

Referring now also to FIG. 8A in the drawings, a chart 800 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Data from57 consecutive patients with headache and rhinitis symptoms isrepresented in chart 800. Following an administration of sublingualdrops to 57 patients, 41 of the patients experienced an improvement intheir symptoms, 4 experienced a worsening of symptoms, 7 experienced nochange in their symptoms, and 5 patients did not follow up. In addition,22 patients reordered the sublingual drops. Chart 800 represents 57actual patients that were experiencing headache and rhinitis symptomsprior to receiving sublingual drops according to the presentapplication.

Referring now also to FIG. 8B in the drawings, a chart 810 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Of 57patients experiencing headache and rhinitis symptoms, 71.9% of thepatients expressed an improvement in their symptoms, 7% expressed aworsening of symptoms, and 12.3% expressed no change in their symptoms.Additionally, 8.8% of the patients did not follow up.

Referring now also to FIG. 9 in the drawings, a chart 900 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Of 49patients experiencing asthma and rhinitis symptoms, 83.7% of thepatients expressed an improvement in their symptoms, 4.1% expressed aworsening of symptoms, and 4.1% expressed no change in their symptoms.Additionally, 8.2% of the patients did not follow up.

Referring now also to FIG. 10A in the drawings, a chart 1000 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Followingan administration of sublingual drops to 712 patients, 61.4% of thepatients expressed an improvement in their symptoms, 12.2% expressed aworsening of symptoms, and 26.4% expressed no change in their symptoms.Thus, 73.6% of patients experienced a positive response, i.e., improvingor worsening of symptoms, to the sublingual drops. The 26.4% of patientsthat experienced no change in their symptoms either transitioned to anelimination or rotation diet, or chose to have limited furtherfollow-up. Chart 1000 represents actual patients that have responded tofollow-up inquiries; i.e., provided an update or change in patientsymptoms: better, worse or same.

Referring now also to FIG. 10B in the drawings, a chart 1010 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Followingan administration of sublingual drops to 933 patients, 46.8% of thepatients expressed an improvement in their symptoms, 9.3% expressed aworsening of symptoms, and 20.2% expressed no change in their symptoms.Additionally, 23.7% of the patients did not follow up.

Referring now also to FIG. 11 in the drawings, a chart 1100 detailingpatient responses to the method for testing and treating delayed foodallergies disclosed in the present application is illustrated. Followingan administration of sublingual drops to 933 patients experiencingheadache, asthma, and rhinitis triad (HART) symptoms, 83.3% of thepatients expressed an improvement in their symptoms, 4.8% expressed aworsening of symptoms, and 4.8% expressed no change in their symptoms.Additionally, 7.1% of the patients did not follow up.

As set forth above, the taking of detailed symptom, medical, and dietaryhistories is important to the procedure of the subject application. Inthe preferred embodiment, a guide is provided to assist a health careprovider in taking a patient's symptom history. In the preferredembodiment, the guide form takes the form of a point system in which aselected point value is assigned to selected symptoms. The results fromthe guide form can be used to evaluate the patient and select anappropriate initial vial and subsequent vials.

The following table represents an exemplary point system for use inevaluating symptoms of delayed food allergies:

Guide Form for Evaluating Delayed Food Allergy Symptoms Symptom PointValue Nasal blockage that is more severe when trying to sleep 100points  without the head elevated, that alternates from side to side,with the “down side” more blocked, causing a dry mouth; water is oftenkept at the bedside; drool spots on the pillow are common Itching of theinner corner of the eye, the throat, or deep 50 Points in the earRepeated sneezing, several times in a row 50 Points Craving certainfoods or drinks, such as milk, cheese, 50 Points chocolate, coffee, softdrinks, etc. Chronic sinus/middle ear infections 50 Points History ofnasal polyps or prior sinus surgery 50 Points Chronic drippy nose,wiping the nose often 50 Points Chronic headache/migraine 50 PointsRepeated throat clearing 50 Points Chronic cough 50 Points Asthma withexercise 50 Points Snoring that is bothersome at times 25 Points Darkcircles under the eyes 25 Points Skin itching/hives 25 Points Fatigueepisodes 25 Points Total:

With the foregoing table, the points are added together for each symptomthat the patient is experiencing all year, indoors and outdoors. In thisexemplary guide form, a delayed food allergy reaction is suggested by atotal point value of 100 or more, a total point value of 200 or moresuggests a moderate problem, and a total point value of 300 or moresuggests a severe problem. It will be appreciated that the foregoingguide form is merely an example of a worksheet-type tool for recordingand evaluating delayed food allergy symptoms, and that alternative guideforms having more or fewer symptoms and point values may be used.

The following are several examples of the use of the therapy of thesubject application on actual patients:

Example 1: Improved (Partial); 37-Year Old Female

Presented on 11 Mar. 2008 with nasal congestion. Had nasal polypectomyin 1987 and 1989. Has continued to have sinus infections, treated abouttwice a year for 20 years. These infections cause fatigue, pain in theright cheek and brow areas, and worsening of nasal blockage. Claritin,Zyrtec, Benadryl (antihistamines) produce little relief. Tomato productsinduce reflux symptoms. Has perennial rhinitis symptoms typical fordelayed food sensitivities: repeated sneezing (up to 20 times in a row),and chronic mouth breathing. Inhalant allergy screen with intracutaneoustests showed mild to moderate reaction to mixes of: weed, tree, mold,mite; negative response to grass and animal danders.

Received #2 “super-combo” food sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and “notsure if any better,” perhaps because of overlying sinusitis, but “feltbetter” regarding less fatigue, less nasal congestion, and reducedrepeated sneezing.

Received sinus endoscopic surgery with adenoidectomy on 29 Apr. 2008.

Postoperatively, on 8 May 2008, she reported that she had found byrotating her diet that beans, taco, corn, chocolate caused eye itching;she has since been limiting these in the diet, but not excluding them.Exam showed half of nasal airway was blocked with edema, even with useof #2 “super-combo” SLIT. Further history was obtained, that she hadbeen drinking soy shakes at least daily, for 2 years. So she was placedon a separate vial of Soy #3 dilution, while still on the #2“super-combo”.

A few days later, she reported that the addition of the #3 Soy causedsignificant increase of nasal congestion. So she was given a vial of Soy#5 dilution, with clearing of nasal congestion within a week.

Soy #5 was added to “super-combo” #2 SLIT, with continued resolution ofnasal congestion.

PLAN: continue Soy #5 added to “super-combo” #2 SLIT, and monitor diet(rotate/eliminate as needed).

Example 2: Improved; 74-Year Old Female

Presented on 7 Jan. 2002 with nearly life-long sinusitis, nasal polyps,multiple sinus procedures, eventually developed fungal sinusitis,referred by a rhinologist, for chronic management. Had typical symptomsof perennial rhinitis symptoms from delayed food sensitivities:nocturnal dependent alternating nasal blockage, repeated sneezingspells, inner corner of eye itching. Developed recurrence of fungalsinusitis in March 2008. Because of severe polypoid edema and thecopious fungal mucin, which could not be adequately removed in theclinic, she was scheduled for a surgical procedure to clear the sinuses.She was placed on #2 “super-combo” food SLIT on 8 Apr. 2008. In surgery,on 16 Apr. 2008, there was found no evidence of any fungal mucin and noedema of the sinuses or nasal cavities. NONE.

She reported that she had “enormous relief” within the first two weeksof using the drops: (%0 relief—symptom) 50% —fatigue; 60% —alternatingnasal blockage; 85% —repeated sneezing; 90% —runny nose; 75% —throatclearing; 98% —skin itching; 75%—cough. Still waking with some drymouth, but thinks related to medications.

PLAN: continue “super-combo” food SLIT at #2 dilution, and monitor diet(rotate/eliminate as needed).

Addendum: friend gave her a 5# bag of Vidalia onions. She had onionsseveral times a day for several days, and experienced moderate return ofrhinitis, especially runny nose. She eliminated onion, and in a fewdays, symptoms were relieved, using SLIT.

PLAN: limit onions, continue SLIT, monitor diet (rotate/eliminate asneeded).

Example 3: Worse; 33-Year Old Male

Presented on 2 Apr. 2008 with nasal blockage worsening for severalmonths, awakening with shortness of breath from intense nasal blockage.Occasionally will sneeze a couple times in a row. Exam showed geographictongue and nasal mucosal edema. Received “super-combo” food SLIT at thestandard #2 dilution.

Seen 18 Jun. 2008, and noted snoring worsened on the drops, the nose wasmore open a week after stopping the drops. Given #3 dilution of“super-combo” food SLIT.

Seen 1 Jul. 2008, and reports no more snoring, nasal blockage 80%better.

PLAN: continue “super-combo” food SLIT at the #3 dilution three times aday, and monitor diet and relate to any worsening of nasal blockage, andto any return of snoring (wife will monitor).

Example 4: No Change; 45-Year Old Male

Presented 17 Apr. 2008 with nasal congestion worsening 6 weeks,worsening when trying to sleep supine. Exam showed very severe septaldeviation to the left, resulting in no airway on that side. Right nasalairway was hyperpatent. Received two week trial vial of “super-combo”food SLIT.

On 5 May 2008, reported no change in symptoms with SLIT. Suggested tryoff tea and diet drinks, which he has had regularly.

Seen 27 May 2008 with nasal blockage persistent. Inhalant allergiesevaluated, mildly positive.

PLAN: continue monitoring diet changes and related nasal blockage.Consider nasal surgery for deviated septum. Consider trial vial withSoy, other foods.

It should be understood that the solutions, concentrations, extracts,and make-up, of the vials, trial periods, and procedures set forthherein may be changed, altered, and modified, while remaining within thescope of this application. In addition, although the present applicationhas been described in terms of liquid sublingual drops, it should beunderstood that the therapy and procedures of the present applicationmay also be conducted with both liquid and solid forms of delivery,including drops, sprays, capsules, tablets, powders, flakes,quick-dissolving strips, and any other suitable form of sublingualadministration.

Although the methods of the subject application are particularly wellsuited for the testing, treatment, and prevention of Gell and CoombsType IV reactions, it will be appreciated that the systems and methodsof the present application may also be used to test, treat, and preventGell and Coombs Type I, II, and III reactions. Moreover, it is believedthat administration of sublingual drops according to the presentapplication may prevent the allergic march from childhood allergic skindisorders, such as eczema, into asthma and other allergic diseases. Forexample, the applicant has conducted an in-house retrospective study andfound that all children with exercise-induced asthma who were treatedwith the therapy and procedure of the present application, no longerrequire the use of pulmonary inhalers. In addition, all children withchronic headaches who were treated with the therapy and procedure of thepresent application no longer suffer from headaches and no longerrequire pain medication. Furthermore, ⅔ of adults with asthma who weretreated with the therapy and procedure of the present application nolonger require the use of an inhaler. All children, and ⅔ of adults with“HART” or Headache Asthma Rhinitis Triad have experienced nearlycomplete resolution of symptoms while using food SLIT, with markedreduction in need for expensive medications which only offer partialtemporary relief. These medications are known to commonly produceundesirable side effects.

Referring now also to FIG. 15 in the drawings, a chart 1500 detailing anoverview of sublingual management strategies for food sensitivities(delayed food allergy) is shown. Chart 1500 is meant to provide anoverview or guide to a practitioner so as to better understand themethod as disclosed in the present application.

It is evident by the foregoing description that the invention of thesubject application has significant benefits and advantages, inparticular: (1) the initial test is a multi-food test, and notsingle-food test; (2) there is no need to keep the patient in the clinica day or more to test a handful of foods; instead, the patient takes thefirst drop in the office, or at home, and continues the drops, threetimes a day, at home, work etc., looking for symptoms to change; (3)after the two week trial, the patient completes a symptom questionnaire,and informs the office whether their symptoms are better, worse, or haveno change; (4) the process manipulates the combination and concentrationof allergens; (5) the patient enjoys the ability to undergo testing andtreatment as well as potential prevention of allergy symptoms, whilecontinuing to eat the foods to which they may have a delayed allergy.Commonly, after the patient becomes aware that foods are causingsymptoms, and learning what those symptoms are, the patient learns toreduce these food culprits in the diet to avoid “breakthrough” symptomsfrom overeating the culpable food.

This method does not utilize invasive testing such as prick testing,intradermal injections, or blood testing. Additionally the method doesnot utilize applying patches of allergens to the skin to induce allergicreactions. This application is concerned with delayed food allergieswhile not performing invasive testing. Invasive testing breaks the skinof the patient through injections, blood draws, or skin pricks. Invasivetesting is not preferable for the testing, treating, or prevention ofdelayed food reactions because of the amount of time required for thedelayed food reactions to occur. Furthermore, invasive testing reducesthe likelihood that a user will be tested and treated because of typicalpatient's dislike of invasive testing.

In those cases where the initial starting dilution is too strong a morediluted algorithm is utilized to provide a starting point for thepatients without the side effects resulting from a too strong dilution.The typical starting dilution is the sum of four factors based on age,asthma, headache, and gastrointestinal issues. In some instance acoarsely gradated initial starting dilution chart is preferred becauseof the evaluation from the patients includes only three types ofseverity of the symptoms such as mild, moderate, and severe.

TYPICAL STARTING DILUTION ALGORITHM CHART (Course) GASTRO- AGE+ ASTHMA+HEADACHE+ INTESTINAL =DILUTION 2-20 = 2   Mild = 3 Mild = 3 Mild = 3 30= 3 Moderate = Moderate = 6 Moderate = 6 6 40 = 4 Severe = 9 Severe = 9Severe = 9 50 = 5 60 = 6 70 = 7 80 = 8 90 = 9 100 = 10

Examples

13 year old female with recurrent severe migraine: 2+9=#11 Dilution

63 year old male with mild headache: 6+3=#9 Dilution

29 year old female with asthma treated a few times a year but withrather chronic severe migraine headaches: 2+3+9=#14 Dilution

71 year old male with moderate headaches: 7+6=#13 Dilution

33 year old female with chronic severe asthma and daily severe headache:

3+9+9=#21 Dilution

The various dilutions are created by starting with the concentrateprovided by the allergy extract company, and making 1/5 dilutions usinga diluent comprised of 1 part glycerin and 1 part water, by volume. Anumber 1 dilution is 1/5 C is created by diluting 1 cc of food extractconcentrate with 4 cc of a diluent, by volume. A number 2 dilution is1/25 C is realized by diluting 1 cc of 1/5 C solution with 4 cc of thediluent, by volume. A 1/125 C is realized by diluting 1 cc of 1/25 Csolution with 4 cc of the diluent, by volume, and so on for furtherdilution. (see the Expanded Dilution chart) The amount of dilution iscorrelated to the severity of the conditions and very, very smallamounts of dilutions such as one part per four hundred trillion cancause reactions. This is similar to the allergic reaction someoneallergic to peanuts gets when a package of peanuts is opened across aroom. The parts of peanuts to air is likewise very, very small but stillcauses allergic reactions in some.

EXPANDED DILUTION CHART CONCENTRATE 1/1  #1 DILUTION 1/5  #2 DILUTION1/25  #3 DILUTION 1/125  #4 DILUTION 1/625  #5 DILUTION 1/3,125  #6DILUTION 1/15,625  #7 DILUTION 1/78,125  #8 DILUTION 1/390,625  #9DILUTION 1/1,953,125 #10 DILUTION 1/9,765,625 #11 DILUTION 1/48,828,125#12 DILUTION 1/244,140,625 #13 DILUTION 1/1,220,703,125 #14 DILUTION1/6,103,515,625 #15 DILUTION 1/30,517,578,125 #16 DILUTION1/152,587,890,625 #17 DILUTION 1/762,939,453,125 #18 DILUTION1/3,814,697,265,625 #19 DILUTION 1/19,073,486,328,125 #20 DILUTION1/95,367,431,640,625 #21 DILUTION 1/476,837,158,203,125

While the expanded dilution chart has been expanded to include up to a#21 dilution, it should be obvious that further weaker dilutions arecontemplated by this application. Weaker dilutions are typical utilizedfor those with severe conditions and or advanced age. Initialutilization of too strong a dilution will negatively impact the patientsexperience and reduce the likelihood of success.

In some instance a finely gradated initial starting dilution chart ispreferred because of the evaluation from the patients includes ninetypes of severity of the symptoms such as mild, moderate, and severewith clarification of the severity being more or less than typical. Forexample is some one stated they had moderate asthma they would score a 5but if they reported their severity as more than moderate but not severethey would score a 6. Like wise when a patient reports having less mildgastrointestinal issues they would score a 1.

AGE+ ASTHMA+ HEADACHE+ GASTROINTESTINAL =DILUTION 2-20 = 2 SEVERITY LESSMILD 1 1 1 30 = 3 MILD 2 2 2 40 = 4 MORE MILD 3 3 3 50 = 5 LESS MODERATE4 4 4 60 = 6 MODERATE 5 5 5 70 = 7 MORE MODERATE 6 6 6 80 = 8 LESSSEVERE 7 7 7 90 = 9 SEVERE 8 8 8 100 = 10 MORE SEVERE 9 9 9

Examples

19 year old female with recurrent more severe migraine: 2+9=#11 Dilution

43 year old male with less mild headache: 4+1=#5 Dilution

39 year old female with average asthma treated a few times a year butwith rather chronic severe average migraine headaches: 3+2+8=#13Dilution

51 year old male with average moderate gastrointestinal issues: 5+5=#10Dilution

In an alternative embodiment an additional level of severity is added tothe typical starting dilution chart to create a typical extreme startingdilution chart. Typically those patients with the worse severity thepractitioner has experienced would receive the highest score from thechart such as a ten. This allows the severity of the symptoms to benormalized against the collected history of clinical experience. Acategory of extreme severity results from the fact patients are testedwith severe conditions worse than all other patients the practitionerhas treated over time and forces a new level of severity to document theincrease in severity relative to the other patients treated over time.

TYPICAL EXTREME STARTING DILUTION ALGORITHM CHART (Fine) AGE+ ASTHMA+HEADACHE+ GASTROINTESTINAL =DILUTION 2-20 = 2 SEVERITY LESS MILD  1  1 1 30 = 3 MILD  2  2  2 40 = 4 MORE MILD  3  3  3 50 = 5 LESS MODERATE 4  4  4 60 = 6 MODERATE  5  5  5 70 = 7 MORE MODERATE  6  6  6 80 = 8LESS SEVERE  7  7  7 90 = 9 SEVERE  8  8  8 100 = 10 MORE SEVERE  9  9 9 EXTREME 10 10 10

Examples

29 year old female with the worst recurring migraines the practitionerhas seen: 2+10=#12 Dilution

63 year old male with worst recurring gastrointestinal issue thepractitioner has seen and mild asthma: 6+10+2=#18 Dilution

It should be apparent that methods of testing, treating, and preventingdelayed food allergies have been described. These methods areimprovements at least because they: preclude the need for invasivetesting and do not require the user to adjust their diet.

The particular embodiments of the present application disclosed may bemodified and practiced in different but equivalent manners apparent tothose skilled in the art having the benefit of the teachings herein.Furthermore, no limitations are intended to the details of constructionor design herein shown, other than as described in the claims below. Itis therefore evident that the particular embodiments disclosed above maybe altered or modified and all such variations are considered within thescope and spirit of the present application. Accordingly, the protectionsought herein is as set forth in the claims below. It is apparent thatan application with significant advantages has been described andillustrated. Although the present application is shown in a limitednumber of forms, it is not limited to just these forms, but is amenableto various changes and modifications without departing from the spiritthereof.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for testing delayed food allergies in apatient, comprising: receiving symptom, medical, and dietary historiesfrom the patient; assigning a first number according to the patient'sage, assigning a second number based on the patient's asthma symptoms,assigning a third number based on the patient's headache symptoms, andassigning a fourth number based on the patient's gastrointestinalsymptoms; and adding the first number, the second number, the thirdnumber, and the fourth numbers together to determine a sum; selecting asolution formed from a selected dilution of a custom tailoredcombination of food extracts based upon the sum and the symptom,medical, and dietary histories of the patient; sublinguallyadministering the solution to the patient; periodically evaluatingwhether the patient's gastrointestinal, headache, and asthma symptomshave improved, worsened, or have not changed in response to theadministration of the solution; and periodically modifying the solutionby altering the dilution of and/or the combination of food extractswithin the solution based upon whether the patient's gastrointestinal,headache, and asthma symptoms have improved, worsened, or have notchanged since the previous evaluation, until the patient's symptoms arereduced or eliminated.